This was a stupid post that had little bearing on the discussion and absolutely no connection to the point of my post that you quoted.
Using modern protocols is expected today, regardless of their ancient methods, it does make them less reliable to rely on through no fault of their own with people of that time. It’s even more reason to use extreme caution.
Perhaps you should have, being with the thread title and all?
Legends are common in historical figures, no one is throwing out the bath water if some of those elements are present, but still helpful to recognize them as such.
Naw, I’ll vouch for you pretty much not really having defended anything as historical thus far in this thread particularly related to Jesus.
More bluster and pontifications, and wow, even wants to put a positive spin and have the RCC being one of the first, and hardly the last for making this great intellectual leap for mankind. Considering how old the RCC is compared to other Christian organizations, that’s a hell of head start and a long damn time to decide on just three chapters, and at that rate, when will they get done, for any of it, and still won’t be any closer to deciding what to do with it. And what did they do with original sin, fall of man, etc, since many have decided they have decided they are no longer historical. Or did they? Might?
I am glad that you agree what you are doing.
This is just dumb. Your complaint was that it took the RCC until 1948 to recognize that Adam and Eve were not “historical figures.” The age of the various denominations is irrelevant. It was not until 1871 that Darwin published Descent of Man which was the first time that anyone would have had a reason to question whether there were actual “first” humans. Dobzhansky did not place the Theory of Evolution on a settled foundation until the mid-1920s. So you are making a big deal about how Catholics are “the last” to get something right when their view, somewhat over 1900 years old, had opened up in less than a quarter century.
And you have still failed to demonstrate how it is appropriate to claim evidence against a historical person by misreading a text written in a specific mode appropriate to its own time.
What stands out about this debate is just that it leaves the question of "IF’ Jesus really as a human is no way a proof of his divinity. The reason is that at one time, Jesus is said to have Thomas put his hands in Jesus wounds to prove he was human, then another where he comes through the wall to them.
It also raises the question to me, as to why none of Jesus close relatives or friends seems to believe he would resurrect; All were surprised to find the tomb empty. It was written that he told them many times he would resurrect from the dead and also is quoted as saying, He would return in His father’s glory with his angels before them standing there saw death. It didn’t happen, at least it was never recorded.
Let me try to be more clear about what I’m saying. Irenaeus wrote about the beliefs of second century Gnostic Christians, which he regarded as heresy. He says that Valentinus preached a belief system which crossed Christian teaching with ideas from Greek neo-Platonic thinking, including characters in Heaven producing offspring. I’m not disputing this. Christian scholars have known about the existence of the Gnostic teaching for centuries, and Irenaeus is one of the better-known church fathers. There’s nothing surprising here.
But Paul says clearly that Jesus came from “the seed of David in the manner of the flesh”. A straightforward reading of this would be that Paul believed that Jesus was a flesh-and-blood human being and descendant of David. In order to justify his alternative reading of this passage, Carrier must argue that the sperm of David was somehow brought to Heaven, was stored in a “celestial sperm bank”, and was used for the conception of Jesus in Heaven.
I am unaware of any Jewish mythology which ever mentions sperm from any human being taken to Heaven, or the “celestial sperm bank”, or the use of any such sperm for the production of an angel or heavenly being. Carrier certainly doesn’t provide any. The article about the Demoness Igrath in the Encyclopedia of Jewish Myth, Magic, and Mysticism mentions no such thing. Irenaeus’ explanation of the doctrine of Valentinus makes no mention of seed at all, and certainly not of human sperm in the heavens. Chapter 30 of Irenaeus doesn’t either. In it, Irenaeus tackles the doctrines of the Ophites and Sethians, two gnostic groups of which very little is known. He describes them teaching that Jesus Christ was not a human, but a spiritual being resulting from mating among the emanations in Heaven. Based on what Irenaeus says, these gnostic groups would not have believed that Jesus was descended from David or any human.
So if we go by what Irenaeus wrote, there were gnostic groups that believed in conjugal productions in Heaven, but none which believed that any humans or human seed was involved. There doesn’t seem to be anything in Jewish mythology or any early Christian or gnostic belief which would justify Carrier’s alternative reading of Romans 1:3.
a
I can’t speak to whether this is true or not, as I don’t have access to the encyclopedia in question. Do you just happen to have it laying about, or did you buy it, or go to the library, out of curiosity? How long is the article on Igrath?
But in any case it is certainly correct that in this section of the book, Carrier gives what seems to many to be a strained interpretation of 2nd Samuel 7:12-14. He gives an interpretation on which it is stating that the one being prophesied will come directly from David’s own sperm, rather than just being a descendent of David.
But the way his argument is structured, he doesn’t need a non-strained interpretation, or anyway, his argument can stand the interpretation being strained to some fairly large degree. This is because he’s not arguing about what the OT passage actually means, but rather, he’s arguing about how early Christians would have interpreted it IF mythicism is true.
Recall the overall structure of his argument is:
The things we see are surprising to degree X if mythicism is true.
The things we see are surprising to degree Y if historicism is true.
X < Y
There are no possibilities other than mythicism and historicism
So mythicism is probably true.
Concerning the seed stuff, he’s saying that if mythicism were true, we’d expect to see the 2nd Samuel passage interpreted in this “strained” way, because it would make the best sense, to an early christian believer, out of the passage (“since Jesus isn’t an earthly descendant of david, the passage must not mean that”), and so the use of the phrase “seed of David” in Romans wouldn’t be particularly surprising.
Nor is it particularly surprising on historicism, so Carrier argues, it’s a wash. Not particularly surprising on either account, hence gives no particular weight to either account.
[Court]Objection your Honor. Please advise counsel, that childhood retorts equivalent to I know you are, but what am I are not becoming and proper of any counsel man, and is no defense at all. Furthermore, your Honor, I ask you to get counsel to state his position after repeated efforts to get him to do so on Jesus historical status and remind him once again of the subject in question. I submit counsel may be embarrassed of his position, so it might be harder to nail down than diarrhea, so request your help. Let’s see if either side has a more plausible preponderance of evidence to go with it a historicity of Jesus than not.[/Court]
Darwin’s On the Origin of Species in 1859 was everybody’s first clue for the masses. Religious leaders insisted later editions better at least have “Creator” put into it, which they relented too. Much religious furor still ensued. Of course, many scientific minds in the 1860’s were also not convinced of Darwin’s theory either, but were much quicker for the majority to jump on board and accept it well before the turn of the century, unless they too, had other serious objections, which were generally religious in nature.
When I original said that the CC is generally the last to get it, I wasn’t even comparing it to other Christian churches initially, but speaking in general terms thinking of their past history with all of their other debacles through some 2,000 years of its history. That’s plenty of time to get ones house in order. To say nothing of the CC’s present stance today on certain social issues which they still oppose, when most people, religious or secular are sooo way ahead of them, including their own members. Since you paraphrased my remarks to make this comparison to other churches, I followed suit. I wouldn’t want to make a bet which one will be the first or last to eventually educate themselves completely out of their religion.
Well, you have yet to come to bat. It’s all relative, but if you want me to be specific on what I think it is more plausible, with different scenarios of historicity vs mythicist positions, comparing if literary and mythic construct or historicity is more plausible, then you’re going to have to be more specific as well of your position. How ‘bout starting with even if you have a position?
Piffle. “Childhood retorts” are exactly what the sort of snide comments you have been making deserve. If you do not wish to be addressed in such a manner, do not bring such an attitude to the discussion.
There have been no “repeated” efforts to get me to take a position on the topic. ambushed sought my involvement on one occasion and I explicitly declined at that time. Please do not exaggerate.
Further, I have no obligation to take a position on the topic. As long as I am not engaged in threadshitting, declaring the topic to be pointless, I have as much right as any poster to point out flaws in specific arguments, regardless of my final position on the topic.
So, you wish to throw in a long off-topic harangue that does not even address the correction I supplied to your earlier off-topic comment? Whatever.
And, once again, you are trying to chivvy me into taking sides on the issue when I have explicitly said I am not interested, apparently in an effort to change the topic away from the failed conclusion that I have pointed out for one specific argument.
I am still not interested and it remains true that discovering mythological motifs in a first century biography or history simply fails to provide evidence to conclude that the subject of that work was invented.
Your Mileage Varies. I’ve been a Christian all my life, and I have never met anyone who believed anything like the above. Perhaps it’s different in Africa.
Regards,
Shodan
I haven’t read Carrier’s book itself. Based on this summary and others, it seems like Carrier’s argument is hopeless. If we want to know whether Paul believed that Jesus was human or an angel, we can simply read what Paul said. Paul said, many times, that Jesus was a human being and an Israelite. In Romans 1:3 Paul says that Jesus was descended from “the seed of David in the manner of the flesh”. As I’ve said before, this is exactly the language that Paul uses when he wants to make absolutely clear that he’s referring to earthly persons and events, rather than heavenly or purely spiritual. He uses the same words to describe ordinary human ancestry elsewhere, including his own ancestry. So a straightforward reading of this passage leads to the conclusion that Paul believed that Jesus was a human being and descendant of David.
Carrier’s entire case is based on convincing us to believe that Paul didn’t believe that Jesus was a human being, and thus he must convince to not interpret this verse straightforwardly. It seems to me that he wants to discuss whether early Christians had a strained interpretation of that passage in 2 Samuel, but he doesn’t want to discuss the straightforward meaning of the words that Paul uses. Plainly when we read any text, we assign meaning to words. You’re assigning meaning to the words you’re reading right now, and assuming that I had the same meaning in mind when I wrote them. If we want to know what sarx meant in Koine Greek , we can look it up in a dictionary or concordance, or merely observe how Paul used it elsewhere. (Though even that’s not really necessary; we could just think about the modern English words that have sarx as their root: sarcoma, sarcosome, etc…) Likewise for Anthropos. We can look it up and we can see how Paul used it elsewhere. (Or again, turn to English words with that root: anthropology, etc…) These words are obviously key to understanding what Paul meant, and no one seems to have any reason why we shouldn’t interpret them as meaning what they say.
Of course we’ve already covered other passages in this thread where Paul says something that doesn’t fit the mythicist theory, such as Gal 1:19, and where Carrier also tells us to adapt a far-fetched interpretation without any reason. We could point to many more, including 1 Cor 2:8, 1 Cor 11:23-25, Phil 2:6-8, and so forth. In all of these cases, the hypothesis that Paul thought Jesus was human fits the facts perfectly, while the mythicist hypothesis doesn’t fit the facts at all.
Where is it that Paul describes his own birth “according to the flesh?” I’m interested in reading that.
You’re pathetic. Just on this page, with post #382 and particularly “Perhaps you should have, being with the thread title and all?” is at least another. And don’t hold back on my account, as you were.
Stay in the closet then, I expected as much, anyway, how sporting of you.
That part was what you considered a harangue? You poor thing. You have made no such correction, only CC spin. Naw, I think what got your butt out of alignment was probably this when I said:Since Catholics are generally the last to get it anyway, considering how long it took them to finally decide in 1948 that it was okay to start teaching Adam and Eve weren’t actually historical figures after all, I doubt I’ll be waiting to hear their latest ruling on Jesus historicity either.
As far as you claiming I’m the one off topic, you paraphrased my remarks to this to first include comparing it to other Christian organizations, then to men of science, and each time I followed suit. And this is me getting off topic? Okay, tuff guy. 
And I didn’t even get to how long it took to apologize to Gaileo, to say nothing of their treatment of other learned men, or the sex scandals (spin that), Mother Teresa, and a whole lot of whacky positions the church position opposes today and is still yet to get it, when much of the modern world does. Now that, I can make a harangue out of that, but don’t need to, unless you make further comment on it, if so, I have every right to follow suit as well.
Yeah, and let me know if you ever decide to be sporting and come out of the closet and state a position, I’ll try to condense some of the material from the authors such as Brodie and others that have been brought up to show why it changed their minds, along with showing what evidence I think is reasonable to me, anyway, to show that the minimal mythicist theory is a plausible and reasonable hypothesis compared to the historical position.
razncain, this is not The BBQ Pit. If you want to continue your off-topic rant, please take it there.
[ /Moderating ]
Interesting debate. I’ve read prior similar threads and appreciate this one.
Frylock, I’d like to single you out for advocating for a minority position with thoughtful restraint. Your style should be emulated by others across these boards and the interwebs.
I have to say, though, that the mythical Jesus theory seems to me to fail in the big picture, before even getting to individual passages.
Am I right that all essentially agree on this:
a. There was a Christian church in and around the Levant and Mediterranean in the first century BCE.
b. Peter, James and John are historical figures, and were the historical leaders of that church, from Jerusalem, and preached mainly to Jews.
c. Paul is a historical figure, not from Jerusalem, and preached mainly to Gentiles.
d. Despite some known or likely errors, Acts is a generally historic description of first century Christianity and the Apostolic Age. Certainly, at a minimum, it is an attempt to portray historic events written at a time reasonably close to those events - and, for some, within living memory.
The reason that I ask is that I don’t see how those general events can support a mythical Jesus. For example:
-
If the Jerusalem church believed in a mythical Jesus who wanted the Jerusalem-based apostles to preach to Jews, why would Paul consider his mythical Jesus part of the same teaching? Why would be bother with the Jerusalem crew at all? Why wouldn’t he set up his own church, with its own Jesus, and its own non-Mosaic traditions? Isn’t the parsimonious explanation that Paul needed the authority that came from personal connection to a real Jesus?
-
If Acts is plainly an attempt at history, and describes indisputably historic figures (for the definition of “indisputably” used when dealing with ancient history) in living memory of their ministries, how can that be reconciled with the same author having previously published what is claimed to be a non-history/mythology (Luke) involving many of the same real, historic figures? Is the scholarship wrong that the books are by the same author? Was there some intervening event?
-
Supposing that Paul was a mythicist, and that the tradition diverged into a historic-based one thereafter, how did at least four separate, substantial authors (Q, Mark, Luke (because of the historic nature of Acts), John) latch onto the same historicist dogma in the subsequent decades? Why would they do so? If a mythicist church was thriving, and everyone understood that was its nature, why would it change? Wouldn’t the congregations notice the change in theology occurring before their very eyes?
I don’t know of any mythicist who would agree with that.
Lots of mythicists question this as well–if by this you mean “attempt to accurately portray historic events”
This is very debatable, not just among mythicists but in NT scholarship generally. Earliest plausible dates are in the 90s, but dates as late as the mid 2nd century are seriously considered in the field.
The point about it being “within living memory” is often used to advocate for its accuracy, but there are a few things to say about that. For one thing, no one (serious about scholarship) thinks there aren’t several bald inaccuracies in it, and its being within living memory doesn’t seem to have helped in those cases, which casts doubt on its ability to help in general.
Indeed we know just how inaccurate records can be within living memory in plenty of other cases throughout history. (Carrier likes to discuss the example of John Frum.)
In any case, even if it was written within living memory, we don’t know it to have come to widespread dissemenation and acceptance, esp in its final form, until the mid second century (giving Irenaeus enough time to find it authoritative enough to cite). As such, for all we know it only had a very narrow audience during the time for which it was within living memory.
Why does anybody convert to any sect? According to Paul, he converted because he had a vision that told him Peter etc were right. This kind of thing happens all the time, so is not in particular need of explaining.
Some Mythicists argue, along with established luminaries like Marc Goodacre and [insert a couple of names here I’ve forgotten but I swear they exist ;)], that there was no Q.
Most mythicists also argue that there’s not particularly good reason to think that either Luke or Matthew are doing anything but creatively elaborating on Mark, rather than relying on independent sources of information.
John’s dependence on Mark is also coming to be more and more accepted in NT history circles.
But setting all that aside, even if you’ve got “separate, substantial authors” all affirming a historical Jesus, I’m not sure what’s very surprising about this if you grant in the first place that some decades after the mythicist flavor of earlier Christianity there was a movement towards historicization. If that’s so, then it’s not particularly surprising that multiple authors wrote within that movement. Maybe I’m misunderstanding your point though.
Wait - so the dominant mythicist position is that not only was there no historical Jesus, but that the Apostolic Age is mythical as well? Or perhaps I am misunderstanding what you mean when you say that mythicists challenge that Acts is an attempt to accurately portray historic events. Because honestly, saying that Acts is spun from whole cloth seems precariously close to the territory of pure woo.
I can understand a general theory that states that the second-century church oversaw a dogmatic transition from a spiritual Jesus to a corporeal one. I haven’t necessarily seen evidence for it, but I can imagine plausible reasons as to how or why that would happen.
What I don’t understand, however, is why it would be necessary to spin yarns about the spread of the church. By the time that Acts was written, the church had spread, and it had been spread by real people. There was a real history there to describe. I would not doubt if the history were embellished in the telling, nor would I doubt that there were inaccuracies in the recorded version (even in the Internet Age, the average newspaper makes, what - a half-dozen checkable factual errors a day?). But why on earth would it have to be fabricated?
I would also think that fabrication would undermine dissemination and acceptance. Say what you want about living memory, but every church in every small town across the Mediterranean would have had an oral tradition of its founding. Many would have had oral traditions tracing directly to Apostles or others mentioned in Acts. Spinning yarns in that context is entirely different from creating a mythologized personification of a spiritual being. The latter can be gap-filling (“you’ve never heard a story about Jesus? Let me tell you one.”), with no real possibility of contradiction. The former, however, is telling people that their local traditions, memories and records are false, and asking them to accept a new version.
Which is all a long way to come back to my original, big-picture failure to understand the mythicist position. I don’t see how Acts - whether written in the first century or the second - can, at its core, be anything other than an attempt to accurately tell a historic narrative. Why would myths needs to be created, and who would believe them even if they were?
Nope. I’ve had US nuns that believed that, too. Educational standards for Dominican nuns were not as high when I was young.
If Jesus was mythical it was a really boring myth. Where is Zeus screwing anything that moves or Thor and his hammer? Loaves and fishes? WTF?
It’s a wonder it ever caught on.
I did not say that Paul describes his own birth with those words; I said he described his ancestry with those words. [Romans 9:3] And of course, in the very next sentence, he reminds his readers that Jesus was an Israelite with the same words.
Bill O’Reilly was on Letterman a week or so ago, coincidentally promoting his book and movie Killing Jesus.
But the reason I bring him up is that any objective person can see that he has been caught red-handed in multiple lies (see this thread if you missed the story). Briefly, he is in print and on tape claiming that he was in a war zone in the Falklands, that while reporting a deadly riot where the police shot and killed numerous victims he bravely dragged an injured photographer out of danger, that he saw nuns killed in El Salvador, that he was on the porch of someone related to JFK’s assassination when he heard the blast of the man committing suicide, etc. All of this has been conclusively refuted, both by the record (e.g. CNN has a tape of a phone call O’Reilly made from Dallas asking about the suicide in Florida that he’d just heard about), and by his former associates who were with him during the times of the alleged incidents.
And yet, on Letterman, he claimed he had been vindicated, and gloated that the controversy had raised his ratings by 20%. Both Fox News and his book publisher are standing by him, agreeing with O’Reilly that this is just a smear campaign by the liberal media, or something. His fans remain his fans, and retain their faith in his honesty.
I do have a point, and it is this: Christian apologists, including some in this thread, offer “living memory” as a powerful refutation to the mythicists, and to skeptics in general. If what the gospel writers claimed about Jesus wasn’t true, then wouldn’t there be people coming forward and saying so?
Well, maybe, if they were still around to read one of the gospels, 50+ years after the events it describes, but what are the odds of that, when Christianity didn’t make much headway in Palestine, and not that many people could read, and books (or scrolls) were rare? And even if they said the gospels weren’t true, what would happen? They probably wouldn’t care enough, nor have the ability, to write a competing book, so probably no more than a handful of people would hear what they said. They might or might not dissuade a few people. After all, it would just be their word.
But even if they wrote the best book ever, I’ll bet they wouldn’t have actual video tapes of Jesus saying something that directly contradicts the claims later made in the gospels, or phone records of him being a thousand miles away from where he was claimed to be on a certain day, or records from his employer showing that he was in a different country during other alleged incidents, etc.
We have all that for O’Reilly, and his believers believe more fervently than ever. And all the exposure of his lies has only succeeded in making his show 20% more popular.
So no, “living memory” is not a refutation of anything.